Some years ago, when the legal position of Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a matter of national discussion in Holland (she had lied about her refugee status when she entered Holland fleeing an arranged marriage, a fact she had talked about many times in interviews), Minister of Immigration and Integration Rita Verdonk, herself a member of Ayaan’s political party, insisted on pushing this issue to the very edge. Vehemently, Ms. Verdonk stuck to the facts, and formally she was right.

Yes, Ayaan had lied when she had fled to Holland, as many people knew inside and outside parliament, and formally Ms. Verdonk had the power to cancel Ayaan’s passport and declare her an illegal alien. The problem: What would this mean for the current session of parliament? Instead of 150 members, the Dutch parliament would have had only 149 members, a clear violation of the Dutch constitution.

Together with my dear friend Afshin Ellian, a law professor at Leiden University, I wrote an op-ed piece for De Volkskrant, the Dutch New York Times (only better — Holland has a population of 16 million, and the paper has a daily print run of over 300,000 copies). We wrote that Ms. Verdonk was right, but the consequences of her rightness could be devastating. It would mean a constitutional crisis unlike any we had ever seen in Holland. Everything that was debated in parliament would need to be annulled and the laws canceled, since parliament had never formally started with full membership as the constitution dictates. And Ayaan would have to be arrested and sentenced, since she had been acting as an MP without being a Dutch citizen.

Immediately, the presidium of parliament answered — the chairmen declared that Afshin and I overreacted. They stated it didn’t matter if Ayaan was Dutch or Somali, this was no problem for the functioning of parliament. Of course, Afshin and I asked these politicians if parliament could also function with 148 members, or with 140, or 100 — where was the bottom line? The politicians tried to avoid this question, and after some weeks the status quo was protected. In order to avoid constitutional chaos, regardless of the facts, Ayaan was declared a Dutch citizen and Rita Verdonk had to step down — although she had been right about Ayaan’s original legal status.

I am not an expert in legal matters, but I have some questions about the criminal court case against the five terrorists who will be brought to New York City. There must be readers who have the expertise to help me, a simple Dutch expatriate in California observing the political and legal circus surrounding the present administration.

Concerning the purity and transparency of the American justice system, I imagine it doesn’t make any difference if a suspect has killed one or two or a hundred people. The system has its own rules, equal to every suspect and blind to the identity of the suspect or his acts. The autonomy of the system is the essential difference between a legal system in a transparent democracy with separation of powers and the legal system in a tyranny.

So I imagine it doesn’t make any difference for the civilian legal system if John Doe is suspected of a single cruel murder or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is suspected of organizing the murder of thousands of people. If this is true — and it must be true — I imagine what would have happened if John Doe had been held six years at a military detention camp without the normal rights given to him by the system, had been waterboarded 183 times (a form of torture, according to the president), and accordingly confessed without having had the chance to use his Miranda rights, which never had been read to him.

In order to protect the purity and autonomy of the American legal system, shouldn’t this case against the suspected terrorists be tossed out by the judge? If I were to be the judge at the criminal case against KSM, I would not have another choice, I imagine.

I would have no choice but to toss out this case since the rights of the suspects have been seriously, chronically, and fundamentally violated by the U.S. government. If the road to a civilian court is taken by President Obama (Attorney General Eric Holder is only the messenger), he is taking the same risks as Ms. Verdonk. Formally, the president has the legitimacy to bring KSM to a civilian court, but at the same time he is shooting his own foot — only by compromising the system can KSM be sentenced. In a civilian court, I imagine, the denial of the essential and fundamental rights of the suspect — innocent until proven guilty, a speedy trial, access to a lawyer, the right to remain silent, the right not to be tortured — can only lead to dismissal.

And if a simple visitor from Holland can figure this out, the attorney general and the president can figure this out too.

Which brings me to another question: If they know what I know, why did they do it? Is it really only to demonize Bush — the prosecution has to share all kinds of sensitive information with the suspects — and to project the misery of the present economic situation and the dangerous stagnation in Afghanistan on the previous administration?

In the congressional hearing, Holder pretended that he was explaining the decision to bring KSM to New York, but he simply stated that it was the right thing to do after all kinds of deliberations. Holder wasn’t able to come up with just a single argument. Rita Verdonk was fighting for the leadership position of her party, and she had thought isolating Ayaan would strengthen her chances. Why is President Obama risking legal disaster? To pay tribute to his extreme left-wing followers? To impress the rest of the world (most non-Americans think the American judicial system is a joke, and the upcoming KSM show is only making it worse)? Is he trying to create chaos? Why?

There must be smart readers who can help me out — I am flabbergasted by all of this.

Leon de Winter is a novelist and columnist for Elsevier Magazine in the Netherlands. His last novel, The Right of Return is a thriller set in Tel Aviv in 2024. He presently lives in Los Angeles.

Click here to view the 86 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

86 Comments, 86 Threads

1.
Brian

I wonder… did we tell the German and Japanese POW’s their Miranda rights as well? Did they have trials? This is the problem with trying to use civilian laws and courts to deal with POW’s. Civilian laws simply are not appropriate, and its lunacy to try to bend them to do so, which is why these trials are going to turn into a farce on an epic scale.

Why do the Obami do really stupid things? Too clever by half, smart but not wise, clueless, blinded by their own arrogance… The only good thing to come out of this disaster is for the American Left to be so thoroughly discredited as to become nearly extinct.

I must be your “smart reader” since I’ve not seen my thesis anywhere else.

Rham Emanual, Soros & Co. have ordered the NYC trial of KSM to put a media smoke screen of years duration over every 60s radical move they want to make.

Every day there will be a new sidebar story of immense proportions emanating from the process: loony attacks on the courtroom, day-of-rage hate-America-Bush bus burnings around the world, and of course the hourly courtroom drama bombshells of venue-rights-coercion, etc.

Think 4th of a July fireworks finale: every event every day will launch a side-clutter of ooohs and aaaahs incidents — a smoke screen that will outlast Obama’s constitutional presidency into his fiat terms.

Clinton did it by 24 hour nibbles. Obama will do it everlastingly.
Had V. Lenin should had today’s media, we’d all be part of the USSR today.

This action by Obama and Holder shows yet again how much incredible influence the Marxist socialist wing of the Democratic Party. One always hears accusations that the Republican party is beholden to the fringe “Christian Right.” Yet, there’s a stony silence about the former.

Why? I don’t really know, but perhaps this is government by distraction. When your foreign policy, like your domestic policy, results in chaos, well, why not just change the subject. Maybe people will be so caught up in this trial, they won’t notice the really important things going on.

If the latter is the case, they are incompetent and unstudied in Constitutional matters. Are they? Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law, and Holder, Attorney General of the United States of America, would seem to be very studied in the Constitution.

Which leaves us with the former case, that they know all of the above, as being the more likely true. They know what constitutional issues will arise from treating these illegal combatants as common criminals. Either they care, or they don’t. For the former to be true, they would not be following this course of action. Yet they are and we can only conclude that they don’t care, or worse still, want the Constitutional issues to play out.

Let’s add into this mix the President’s comment, “When they are convicted by the justice system…” and consider the effects on jury selection of a President pronouncing the guilt of defendants in a criminal case. There is no trace of “alleged” in his statements; he is confident in their being found guilty. How does this play into finding a jury? Did the President know what he was doing, or not? Again: Constitutional law lecturer.

So, what are we looking at in this case? If, as stated by the author, the Judge in the case follows the rules, as established (Miranda, speedy trial, facing accusers, harsh interrogation, others?), he will have no choice but to throw out the case, letting these terrorists free, unconvicted and untouchable. The result on the polity of such an outcome? I don’t know, but in my bones I feel it won’t be a simple, Christian, turning of the other cheek.

On the other hand, if the Judge forges ahead with the case, he opens the door to a crisis in the judicial system and, probably, a Constitutional crisis. A “manufactured crisis” to recall Joe Biden’s words to a group of Democratic supporters in the Presidential election campaign. A manufactured crisis right out of the Cloward-Piven strategy for radical overthrow of the American system.

With either outcome in this case, an undermining of the system is the result. From Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, the people “must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.”

The point of the KSM Trials is in fact to create a Constitutional Crisis… The very objective is to undermine American confidence in the Constitution and the intitutions dependent upon it. The Constitution is – in the minds of Obama and Holder and that cluster surrounding them – a failed document that inhibits true “social justice.” It must be weakened, it must be rejected and it must ultimately be destroyed.

The real question is this: Does the Obama/Holder decision descend to treason?

My own view is that the trial is a red herring political strategy to divert attention during an election year (2010-12) from the failures of the Obama administration and ‘blame Bush’.

First, I don’t think that the American judicial system requires any national or international justification.
Second, the terrorists are not American citizens and thus, trying them ‘as if’ they were does not make any sense.
Third, their actions were not criminal (against individuals) but acts of war against the American people. This requires a military trial.

The Obama administration is not focused on the wellbeing of America or Americans. But on Power. Their socialist agenda is to remove power from the people and put it into the hands of government.

Their strategy towards Congress, supposedly the representatives of the people, is to remove that power and turn it into a rubber stamp of the Executive Branch of govt.

This ‘trial’ is a political tactic, geared to the Obama agenda of retaining Power in the next elections.

Smart does not even get close to describing me, but I will give my opinion just the same.

I think you are correct in your analysis. This move to a civilian court cannot have any just or fair outcome under this change of venue. What ever way it goes it will be a circus.

This US administration is not doing much in the interest of the people it works for (I think it actually is subverting the citizens of USA). They are ignoring all the norms of democracy and fairness.

The AG is a sympathizer of terrorists of every strip as his track record shows. I think that they want to make a political show against the previous government, like the Stalin kangaroo court trials in the old USSR.

This is politics not justice.

Like your story about the Dutch parliament there is a political agenda and the good of the nation or an individual has nothing to do with anything.

KSM and his associates are not guilty of murder. They are guilty of plotting and engaging in acts of war without satisfying the requirements of being called a lawful combatant. That is the flaw in the case that nobody wishes to discuss. Their status of unlawful combatant doesn’t fit into the legalistic approach to war that transnational progressives favor.

To be an unlawful combatant is to be outside the rule of law and therefore subject to summary punishment. Since almost all unlawful combatants are “third world victims” and are imbued with special rights and privileges to deny them the maximum protection of civil law is itself a crime in their eyes.

We live in a bizarro world where lawful actions by states are declared war crimes and acts by traditional unlawful combatants are legalized.

I understand that mister Obama’s latest political decisions are somehow confusing for you, but I calso can assure you that you’ve joined an extremely large crowd of voters who are simply clueless as to why mister Obama has done one or another thing (or hasn’t done one or another thing) as a statesman supposed to further or protect America’s legitimate interest.

There are many explanations around for his unexcusable actions – of them I’ll remind you just a few:
1) Obama is actually remarkably consistent, because in one way or another, he is fulfilling his electoral campaign’s promises -
2) Obama is actually simply a resentful, incompetent post-colonial simpleton, psychologically marooned in the the 60-s/ 70-s revolutionary marshes, unable to see that the world is very different of the renderings of his university liberals -
3) Obama is actually fulfilling perfectly well his secret assignment of weakening the USA (and the Western World), assignment given to him by some mysterious force that has all the way since then have created a protective Potempkiniade for him, in a sort of “When the Truman Show meets The Manchurian Candidate -
4) etc. etc….

Kayle Shriver has once labeled Obama’s presidency as an illustration of Peter’s Principles converging with Murphy’s Law – “what makes Obama tick” is probably a mixture of all of these assessments (some unknown elements not identified yet), and as we can see, this chemestry is having very bad effects upon this nation -

The fact that Obama is separating himself from this decision–giving responsibility to Holder (although constitutionally he is the decider) leads me to think that there may be negative impact expected or planned by this administration. IF secrets come out, IF details of “torture” are pored over in open court, and IF there’s a dismissal or acquittal because these terrorist were not treated from the first like car thieves, Obama can wring his hands sanctimoniously but the world will know it WAS ALL BUSH’S FAULT.

There is precedent to this, isn’t there? President Richard Nixon referred to Timothy Leary as the most dangerous man in America, prior to Leary’s trial for the possesion of a tiny amount of cannabis leaves. He was convicted anyway. Look the other way. Don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s Chicago-land. The fix is in.

Contrary to popular notion, accused criminals in the US do not automatically get a pass on their crimes because the government has mistreated them. Those are separate issues. The mistreatment can exclude evidence gained thereby. So the fact that KSM was tortured would exclude what he said as a result. But not otherwise harm any case against him for his crimes. My money is on Holder, that there is indeed plenty of evidence to convict KSM, untainted by such government misdeeds.

You put your money on Holder? You mean the AG that dropped a voting rights case that the Justice Department professionals had already won? If you want to put money Holder I have all sorts of sucker bets for you.

i second the answers amounting to “the worse, the better.” we are in thrall to Leninists, ladies & gentlemen: this is what they are programmed to do. they capture popularity by making unfulfillable promises, and then, once installed, go about subverting everything of value and fomenting a war of all against all. let’s hope the founders’ system and the habits of the people long enough to avoid the onset of true crisis.

The explanation as to why Obama is bringing this circus to NY is one of the following:

1. He believes it’s the right thing to do to uphold our “principals” as Americans. KSM committed a terrible “crime” and must be treated fairly through our justice system. If we do not take this approach, we sow the seeds of our own future breakdown, OR

2. As horrible as 9/11 was, previous American administrations (excepting Carter) have treated the “world community” with disdain, whether by sending our troops to massacre innocent Iraqis, or by “stealing” the world’s resources with our great wealth. With this view, it is understandable why KSM and his comrades committed the 9/11 attrocity. A trial in federal court, with application of all the right due an American citizen, will guarantee a dismissal. This is a step we must take to repent for OUR crimes that led to 9/11.

I believe the answer is point #2. I will estimate that AT LEAST 15% of the American population agrees with point #2, probably more. More more of the “world community” will agree with point #2. You may read this and think I’m nuts, but it’s true. The fact is that Obama does not like the America he grew up in. But he LOVES the idea of the America he hopes to form. A HUGE part of his baseust be satisfied…..

Why? It’s really not that difficult. Obama is a radical leftist. He doesn’t want to reform government. He wants to scrap the American capitalist system and replace it with a marxist/communist system. His whole life, his upbringing, his friends, his acquaintances have all been dedicated to this goal.

By bringing KSM to trial he accomplishes two things.

1. He makes a mockery of the United States justice system. If KSM does go to trial and the Obama justice system completely ignores the constitutional requirements of a fair trial then he’s succeeded in setting a legal precedent for kangaroo courts.

2. He shows the world the “atrocities” committed by the United States against a citizen of the world. This drums up anger against the United States and it’s system of government and gives him further ammunition to scrap our current system.

What we’re looking at is a bloodless coup. The final stages of a revolution that’s been brewing for a long time.

What concerns me is what I believe will happen. There will be a stream of motions, starting with one to change venue that will draw the trial process out for several years. There may be grounds for interlocutory appeals that will further lengthen the proceedings. There will be appeals post conviction, if conviction occurs. It will be a circus as the defendants will attempt to max out the image damage on the US system of justice. The idea will be to black the eye of the US as much as possible.

The security concerns for this lengthy trial have to weigh heavily on New Yorkers and the city’s police force, along with federal marshalls.

The precedent established by Holder’s decision is alarming. Enemy combatants with no citizenship are being afforded the Constitutional protections of US citizens. This makes no sense at all, especially when Senator Obama was one of the chief advocates for military commission legislation in 2006, specifically mentioning KSM on the floor of the Senate.

I am dumb founded by the poor thinking that went into this decision. Eric Holder is crazy to be doing this and the President as Commander in Chief is shirking his responsibility by letting Holder control the selection of forum and venue.

“It may well be that Obama and Holder really aren’t all that smart after all.”

They are not the sharpest blades in the drawer. Obama and Holder most assuredly have taken advantage of affirmative action grading. These guys are intellectually shallow and poorly read. It’s time to stop the ignoring the obvious.

Always the question, dangerously naive, or just dumb? The president is doing what he does best, setting it up so that he bounces clear of the accident and everyone else can take the fall. These action are going to catch up with him at some point…even if he is hiding behind Holder.
Are the american people really going to think spending $75 mill on bringing KSM and co. to the united states, in this economic climate is a wise decision. Not to mention the target it places on New York again, only blocks from ground zero?
I agree with an earlier post, the beauty of the left is that they are their own worst enemy…its a tough world when you deal in pragmatic terms, rather than living in a world of theory. By the way, does he know he’s the president yet, or is he still voting present??

Obama is a stupid, insipid human being. He allows others to run things while he shirks his duties to our nation, and humiliates us as he did recently on the oriental tour… He doesn’t know better, and he is merely a puppet. Manchurian Candidate.

My grandchildren will never be Muslim.
We have too much respect for ourselves.

-You are a honorable soldier, wear uniform, respect all provisions of the Geneva conventions and after being captured by the Uniited States Armed Forces just because of your uniform you go into a prisonners camp for years until the war is ended.

-You are terrorist who doesn’t wear uniform, êrpetrates the most horrendous crimes, respect none of the Geneva Conventions and after being captured instead of being summarily executed according to those same Geneva Conventions (who were never meant to tie the hands of the good guys), you are read your Miranda rights, are considered innocent, get a lawyer, all the benefits granted to citizens, possibly walk free on laws intended for pêace tme or are handled a sentence small enough so you can walk away from jail and continue your job of killing Americans, or in case you don’t are granted possibility to pass information to other terrorists.

First, the one I expect, the defense plays it for as much air time as can be made. That man, (team?) will have HUGE chops in criminal defense.

Second, a five minute trial. “Your honor, my client was not properly Mirandized, held without bond/legal counsel/due process and tortured for months I move for dismissal of these proceedings on the grounds that the Military and Federal Government has willfully violated my clients civil rights.

Can’t disagree with anything you said, however your comment about being “dumb founded” must be tongue in cheek: Obama and Holder know exactly what they are doing. What’s lacking is the wisdom to see or anticipate the consequences of his actions. (or maybe he just doesn’t care)

It’s the “change you can believe in” mantra on steroids – except this time it will backfire. It’s entirely possible that instead of talking about his “great policy successes” (sarc) in his 2012 relection campaign, he’ll be defending this decision (and the expenses associated with it) as the trial drags on….I’m waiting to see how he goes about shooting himself in the other foot.

Anonymous (7) is correct. They are doing this deliberately in order to put Bush and company on trial, preferably in the International Criminal Court.

A limited list of the problems here

1) KSM is not a POW, subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In fact he is specifically denied them. He is an unlawful enemy combatant according to the international conventions of war and, quite frankly, we can do with him as we please. (According to the Geneva Conventions, to be afforded their protections a combatant must be fighting in an organized military structure, under a traditional command structure, and fight in a uniform. He must also abide by the laws of war, including, for instance, observing protections of civilians.)

2) Nor is he a civilian criminal. He is not a US citizen nor has he has never been on US soil. He was not even arrested by US forces, having been turned over to us by the Pakistanis. The defense lawyers are going to have a field day with the jurisdictional issues.

3) Soldiers on the battle field don’t follow civilian police procedures. Prisoners aren’t read their Miranda rights, for one thing, and they aren’t exactly afforded a speedy trial. In addition, captured combatants are often subjected to “intensive interrogation techniques” in order to speedily extract information necessary to prosecute the war. The emphasis here is on protecting one’s fellow soldiers and citizens; the rights of the prisoner fall a distant second.

4) Almost all of the evidence against KSM and his fellow terrorists is generated from classified means. I can’t see that any of it will be let into the public light. Odds are that the CIA would rather release KSM than reveal its sources and methods.

If they are forced to reveal classified information, as happened in the HLF trial in 2007 with alist of Unindicted Co-Conspirators , it will seriously damage
U.S. security by telling the terrorists precisely who we’re looking at and how.

The difference between war and criminal actions is that criminals threaten individuals; they are subject to one’s own laws and traditions and a criminal knows that he has done something wrong by his own society.

However, enemy combatants like KSM are not a part of our society, and in fact are acting in accordance with their own morals and laws. By his own society’s rules, KSM had done nothing wrong! This, BTW, is why techniques like water-boarding are necessary to extract information – there is no guilt which an interrogator may use for leverage. Also, of course, combatants are usually trained to resist conventional interrogation techniques (whereas criminals are not).

Warfare doesn’t just threaten individuals, it threatens the entire society. Furthermore, because warfare involves large organizations, trying individuals is useless. The entire organization must be neutralized or disrupted; removing an individual soldier or even a general may inconvenience the opponent, but will not stop them entirely. Trying KSM will have absolutely no effect on terrorist activity per se.

So, we’ve got KSM and company in New York for a trial. We’ll ignore the issue of legal authority for a while; also ignore the issues related to military vs civilian arrest, imprisonment, and interrogation; and assume that enough non-classified evidence is available. What is the probability that they can find a non-biased jury in the very city that suffered the attacks planned by KSM?

Senator Reid said, during a TV interview a few days ago, that (I paraphrase): regardless of the outcome of the trial we’ll keep KSM in prison based on [Bush's] doctrine of pre-emptive detention. Excuse me? The whole idea of this trial is to show the fairness of the U.S. legal system to the world and we have a congressman announcing ahead of time that regardless of the outcome we’re going to keep the prisoner in jail anyways? The lawyers will have fun with that one!

Oh, and if they decide to put him in a military tribunal after a (failed) civil trial isn’t that double-jeopardy?

Of course, New York is going to be Target 1 for terrorists seeking to free KSM. I predict that the judge and jury in the case will receive notes to the effect of: “we know where you live and how many kids you have”. There is also the possibility of direct attack. New York SWAT teams are fine against armed criminals, but they may have a problem with trained soldiers using RPG’s and military-grade explosives.

My view is that Obama and Holder have decided on civilian criminal trial for tactical and political reasons that have nothing to do with justice. Obama and Holder would dearly love to indict ex-President Bush and administration officials for crimes concerning the Gitmo interrogations. However they are unwilling to risk the inevitable political fallout or set a precedent they may personally regret. Far better to have a highly motivated team of defense lawyers with nothing to lose do the running for them. The KSM defense will do everything in their power to put the Bush administration on trial and turn the focus of the proceedings from mass murder to “illegal interrogation.” They will use the full power of the discovery and subpoena process to summon Bush officials for direct examination. Don’t look for the Justice Department attorneys to work very hard at opposing discovery demands on grounds of relevance. If the defense can create a sufficient circus then Obama will have resurrected the “Bush is the Devil” trope and mollified the lunatic Left (as if there is any other kind.) He is gambling that even after all the smoke-and-mirros the defendants will still be found guilty. In a way it’s quite a brilliant strategy.

Transferring the KSM et al. trial to NY and civilian court is a very smart, although extremely cynical, partisan political move. The trial will give widespread publicity to the “perfidy” of the Bush administration and will, the planners of the move anticipate, inflame passions against the Republicans – thus, when 2012 comes around, Mr. Obama wins again. It is difficult even to start imagining all the spins designed to put the non-Obama America on trial. Look at what the tactics employed during the Claus Barbie case were in France! In fact, there is no need to go that far. Look at the spins already being put on the Hasan murders at Fort Hood. Not his fault. Driven to it by American oppressive excesses against the Muslims, etc. Just you wait! And the conspiracy theories which, by way of defence “theories” of what caused 9/11 will be bandied as the truth! If KSM is convicted, it will be argued that the result was all fixed in advance to “cover up” the “real” causes, which will be attributed to George Bush his “neocons” and the Israeli (Jewish) lobby. If he is acquitted, the acquittal will be used as an overt proof that 9/11 was all American (pre-Obama, of course) – and yes, of course, Israeli (Jews) – fault and doing. Use of show trials for political purposes is nothing new.

One of the worst things is narrowmindedness. We have an example for it, if Pres. Obama’s motivation is exposing Ex-President Bush and taking risks for this aim without looking at the consequences. In the long run these things don’t pay off, as Western voters can think by themselves, and American voters in particular were able to see some of the faults of the former government themselves and point them out -thanks to free speech- during the Bush years.

The only good thing that can come out of this is for a wise judge to dismiss the charges and set the defendants free to walk out of court on day one.
The Obama administration effectively comes to a screeching halt if that happens and we can begin firing up our chainsaws to decimate anything appearing Democrat.

More evidence that Obama is a product of Affirmative Action, a degree in Law yet it seems he does not understand the very simple premise of our laws and Constitution.

KSM is NOT an American Citizen thus he does not receive the protection of American laws and the Bill of Rights. They do not apply to him. Also as a terrorist he is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, thus we can hold him indefinitely and summarily execute him when ever we feel like it.

If Obama thinks “putting the Bush administration on trial” is a smart idea then he is dumber then I thought. If that is the result of this trial then Obama will be lucky to carry any state other then DC, Massachusetts and California.

We all know the attorneys manning AG Holder’s old firm are well aware of the defenses they intend to use to allow this terrorist to have a fair trail. They’re practiced over years. Is there any way the judge can’t dismiss the charges after the defense bashes the failure to Mirandize, the lack of a speedy trial, the “torture”? Of course not! And even if he did, the terrorist would take the appeal to the Supremes and probably win. What we are watching right now is first and last step in the destruction of our legal system. Economy. Private property. It’s all going down in less than a year. Amazing. And our lawmakers will sell their votes for money to their district with no conderation of any Constitutional questions a 2000 page monstrosity might entail. Oath smoath!

So far this discussion has only touched on the affect these trials are going to have in the US. What about international precedent? Often in these spaces we lament the fact that US judges are increasingly using foreign law and precedent to rule on US cases. This is because looking around, they see judges in other countries doing the same and want to emulate in order to earn their ‘citizen of the world’ spurs for the ‘we are one’ posturing etc.

But now the most powerful (and allegedly, the most just) country in the world is stating in front of God and everybody else that we can enforce our own laws on the soil of another country. (None of the defendants are being tried for acts committed in the US, on US soil). Of course, the authority to enforce our own law on the soil of other countries would derive from the fact NOT that we are the most powerful country on earth (at least, not according to the left) but that we are the most just.

So how long before US citizens (or worse, service members) are arrested and tried in any given unfriendly country for ‘crimes’ committed on US soil or in places like Afghanistan or Iraq?

“War” crimes? “Ecological” crimes? Any third tier country can enact any law they wish, and most have no constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws…

This is all very simple. No lawyer left behind. Only properly vetted lawyers can be trusted to defend KSM. That will be high ranking members of the Bar, who have made donations to the DNC and Obama & Co. Billable hours paid in full by the U.S. The Judge and Prosecutors all get book deals.

What exactly are we going to do if the court-having to follow US civilian law-finds their rights were violated and the case gets tossed out? Let them go? What sort of f-ing IDIOT opens this up to that possibility in the first place? My toddler could run this country better!

I tend to agree with other comments that taken together most of the actions by Obama only make sense if they are seen as attempts to overwhelm the system, to damage the country so severely that it will be pushed to a breaking point as a prelude to what – who knows? A one world government? An authoritarian dictatorship? At this point no one outside the inner circle would know the ultimate aim. Whatever it is, it will fundamentally transform this country just as he promised, so that it no longer resembles the constitutional republic that we have known. Always he manages to give himself plausible deniability by having all the heavy lifting being carried out Congress or his minions. With the Democrats in complete control in Washington and the left in nearly full control of the media, any possibility of impeachment that would have the backing of the American people is out of the question. I feel that he is a traitor at the center of a conspiracy, and the country has no ability to handle this precedent. It seems crazy even to entertain the notion; a fact which I suppose they were counting on.

The reason are really simple… From chaos comes opportunity. Obama and his sycophants are nothing if not opportunists. It seems to have been the far left’s dream to get rid of those pesky parts of the US constitution that stand in the way of the imposition of their view of utopia. What a better way to do it? Create chaos, declare an emergency, suspend the Constitution, then rewrite the document leaving out the parts that they see as old fashioned and out of date. After all, they are Progressive.

Sorry, but I don’t share your expectations regarding the political damage that may be done to the prior administration.

I have little doubt that Holder and company are seeking to expose the Bush administration, however, the damage will spill back on them if things go on forever (this will take a very long time to try and then appeal), if there is a security incident, or if the trial goes into circus mode. It will also blow back if there is anything less than a conviction. President Obama is the executive now and it will be his responsibility.
Time is going to be a huge factor in the procedings. The volumn of discovery that will have to be produced by the government may be unprecedented in the history of jurisprudence. If I were defendants’s counsel I would move to change the venue and then hit the prosecution with a staggering discovery request. The state will respond claiming national security privledge and the battle will be on. There may be interlocutory appeals.

The President and the AG have both repeatedly declared waterboarding is torture so those words will be used against the state to suppress admissions by the defendants and (here’s the key) any evidence that was gathered as a result of those admissions. This could make the case extremely tricky to try for the prosecution.

If convictions are obtained appeals will inevitably result. These may go on for several more years after trial.

As time plays out all sorts of pundits will be able to replay the decision to employ the district court forum. If things are going badly, Holder and his boss will be repeatedly bludgeoned with the decision and its consequences. Remember, Senator Obama was a sponsor of the military tribunals legislation that he is now refusing to employ. He has no place to hide now. Things could spiral out of control very quickly. If the trial invites a terror incident, the Administration will have great difficulty getting reelected.

I just don’t understand why the President thought the political advantages outweighed the headaches regarding this decision. The decision is decidedly a political one and not a legal one. I see land mines everywhere that Holder and Obama could step on. I am worried about the consequences for our country.

This is the worst decision I have seen an American President make in my life time. Convictions by military courts would have made the President look consistent, effective, and strong, would be obtained more quickly and would deny the terrorists a forum. I just am baffled by the decision. So many things could go badly wrong. This could cost Obama the Presidency. If I had been Holder I would have warned the President away from this choice.

The US attorney will hold back charges involving the defendants to ward off that possibility. He will hold indictments in reserve to use in the future if he loses. I am not worried about that consequence. It’s the other consequences that I have already identified that alarm me. My bet is our US Attorney and his team who try the case will do a great job. It’s just that the task is monumentally enormous, especially if the defendants decide to put up a complete defense. It boggles the legal mind actually.

Someone hinted that this is a strategy they will use next year to show how benevolent they are to muslims, whom they wish to pander to for votes, and to show how different they are from the Bush administration in persuing terrorists.
This shall create so much media hype, newsprint, and confusion that the elections shall be overshadowed by the circus taking place in New York.
This sounds naive, but, look at what these dummies have accomplished so far!
Truley incompetent; Dangerously so, and Alinsky-esque.

RE #33/moho RE [...] but I have some questions about the criminal court case against the five terrorists who will be brought to New York City. [...]
Further mojo : [...] Go get one and come back, I’ll wait. I’m no expert either, and I think you’re full of crap. [...]

Here jomo, answer to these:
1) senator Jack Reed positively (& publicly) asserted that even the terros will be acquitted THEY WILL NOT BE RELEASED -
2) the Bower & Deliberator in-chief positively (& publicly) asserted that KSM IS GUILTY (and this comes from the very one who presided two years over Harvard Law, then teached constitutional law at Chicago U – quite a resume) -
3) the AG himself, Eric Holder has positively (& publicly) asserted that failure is not an option in this trial, and that KSM is guilty -

Jomo, since the essential point in the liberals’ defending this gigantic act of incompetence (if not sedition) is that the move of moving the terros trial to NYC will be greatly beneficial to the integrity of the American justice system, now amuse us – how do you apply to this trial the following notions:
a) of the presumption of innocence,
b) of a prosecutor who is also a judge and jury,
c) of a non-prejudiced process of law,
d) of juries not subjected to outside influences,
e) of non-interferrence in the said process of figures of authority,
f) of proper psychological circumstances that should surround the procedures of a correct delivery of law -

Leon: you are indeed simple… I read what you posted and I am not sure why you are on this site… the only reason I would think is you too like the rest of the people here are anti muslim and anti Obama.. look simpleton: this is America, and we have laws here…. we do not beleive in torture yet we did torture, we held people for years with out charges and that is unconstitutional…. we now have a president who is standing up for what is right… I was righe here in New York, when both plane hit the towers and I am glad they are being tried here…. OJ simpson got away with murder…. to siplmy try to get a conviction in some court that is not ligit makes us even look worse.. that what bush did and Obama is trying to undo…. get over it…

You need to think political and not legal. Suppose the case is tossed due to “all the above”. The political answer will be “we told you Bush was bad but this bad?” It’s clear Obama and the left are reaching to pull Bush out of the hat again (2010) and again (2012). They likely already have gamed and drafted their statements.

The strange thing is that I have to make this exact same argument to even libertarian people. But you have the correct ideal. The amount of United States Citizen’s rights that have been trampled on against KSM makes convicting him legally impossible. He is not a United States Citizen, and is in fact a foreign unlawful enemy combatant that does not entitled to United States Citizen protections, nor a military captive that is entitled to UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) protections. He falls into a near black hole due to his rejection of lawful warfare. If he were a United States Citizen, he would/should be tried for Treason and summarily executed. If he were a lawful enemy combatant, the worst we should be able to do to him is hold him until the conflict is over and then release him to his lawful government.

I’m no genuis, but your comments are right on. However, my take on the whole upcoming debacle, it simply that Obama and Company do not really have a handle on the complext make-up of the Amemican people as of nation. Obama, etal, are hoods used to raming it down the throats of the citizens. This may have worked in Chicago Politics and Hood Politics, but this game, in the national arena, will Backfire big time. I’m damned sure We Americans who are now awake are watching; we’re asking our friends, neighbors, and family members, “Hey, can he (Holder/Obama) do this?” The so called Officers of te Court are scratching their cumulative heads and saying, “No. I don’t think so.” SO essentially this Obama,etal strategy will fail and go down in American History and Law Books as ONE BIG F.U. (That American english for really one big mess.)!!

Let me make this simple for you. KSM is not a criminal. He is an unlawful combatant. That is entirely different then be a common law breaker. He did not commit murder as he is charged. He is guilty of unlawfully making war. Under customary international law he has no rights nor does he have any rights under the US or other constitution. In fact, if you want to grant him status as a POW trying him in civil courts is a war crime under Article 84 of the Geneva Convention on POWs. Historically, KSM would have been exploited for intelligence and then summarily executed.

Since the Peace of Westphalia, only state actors can legally make war. This was done to prevent the use of non State actors as combatants because of the depredations of mercenary armies during the Thirty Years War which saw the population of Germany cut in half in large part because of these private armies. Treating KSM as legitimate POW or criminal undercuts the laws and customs of war established in 1648 and will let lose private armies once again to decimate entire populations.

From a legal standpoint, if I were KSM’s attorney I would claim my climate is a POW who is conducting war against the United States and move to dismiss the murder charges since his actions are outside the jurisdiction of the US Courts under Article 84. Military forces may commit war crimes but their actions do constitute murder or conspiracy to murder.

But then most of the world’s universally envy-motivated, rage-engined, hatred-driven, pathologically-hesperophobic and morbidly-ingrate Euro-peon-Neo-Soviet-dwelling and other un-anti-and-non-Americans (including, in its entirety, the current US “congress,” the TelePrompTered pretender to what these days passes as a “presidency” and his execrable gang of the very many others who fit that description despite having maybe been born in America) have never been to the kingdom of the Netherlands’ Aruba — nor met the likes of Joran Van Der Sloot, Paulus Van der Sloot, Anita Van der Sloot, Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, Gerold Dompig, David Cruz et al.

That said, though — and putting aside Herr de Winter’s gratuitous swipe at the world’s very finest (although not always in its abjectly-Euro-peon-ized fiat “judges” execution) judicial system — a thoughtful take on the destructive activities and actions of our beloved fraternal republic’s deadliest-ever enemies: its current feral gummint!

Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels – Califobambicated 90028
And the Very Far Abroad

Leon, we have here a radical Saul-Alinsky socialist faux President who fooled a majority of people into voting for him, using Alinsky rules. A trial in Federal Court is about two things: making the Bush administration look bad and freeing the terrorist. It may also be about Obama’s hatred of America.

The only President who is at risk of being exposed and ridiculed
during this trial is the current occupant. George W. Bush won’t
be harmed in any way. What could possibly come out at this trial
that we don’t already know? Anyone who has not been in a coma
the last couple years knows the Bush Administration slapped KSM
around and waterboarded the creep 183 times. Dick Cheney has
been all over television bragging about it to anyone who will
listen. Cheney proudly says that he would gladly do it again.
Where will the shock value be when KSM and/or the liberal
media start whining about it?

The only thing most Americans will be wondering about is
why KSM is still breathing. If the trial turns into a circus
and God forbid KSM gets acqitted, all the country’s scorn
will be dumped on Obama for being stupid enough to try him
in Federal Criminal Court, whatever his warped reasoning.

This has been suggested before but it is also my belief. The NY venue has been chosen to MAKE the city the target of a new terrorist bombing during the trial – say a huge truck bomb with huge loss of life. More than likely, as is the mudus operandi of AL Quaeda, there will be several bombs detonated within a short interval possibly in different cities. The plan: declare a NATIONAL state of emergency under those new powers granted to the chief executive since 911. Who knows where Chairman NObama plans to go from there but NO GOOD CAN COME OF IT !

Holder, (and President Obama) are convinced that Bush & Co. along with all they represent are more dangerous to America and Americans then terrorists.

This act will allow the revelation of intelligence practices under Bush that Obama believes will be embarrassing and damaging to Bush and his supporters- but will also provide deniablity for Obama- he can blame the court for these actions.

Of course, I, like most Americans, consider this to be highly delusional, and once again proves that liberals cannot figure out who their friends are and who their enemies are.

Obama hates the Military, so much that he’s willing to take the risk that KSM could end up with a hung jury or even have the case dismissed. He says that he wants to show the world how just our legal system is. If that were true, he should keep his yap closed and stop making predictions about the outcome, which is what people normally would do, since there really is no way to predict what decision a jury will arrive at. Instead,he wants the focus to be on himself, the wise and all knowing great world leader, confident in his decision to do something completely idiotic just because he knows so much more than the rest of us. Remember, he is a lawyer and he alone understands how justice works in this country.The rest of us should be content to remain awe struck by his presence.

To answer the questions posed by the article: No, dismissal is not required. Evidence acquired by unconstitutional means needs only to be excluded from trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed now must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence properly acquired pursuant to the current judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the defense team will not seek such a dismissal because that would allow the Government to re-file charges at a later date. Indeed, the Government might change its mind and send KSM back to a Military Tribunal. The better defense practice is to submit to a trial, at which time the 5th Amendment’s provision against double jeopardy attaches. Keep in mind that in the Federal prosecution is not exclusive. Mr. KSM may face murder charges by state authorities in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia after his Federal trial.

Of course, any prosecution is problematical because the actual perpetrators were the 19 hijackers, who are all dead. The Attorney General may not realize it, but the prosecution will more difficult than that of Charles Manson. Like KSM, Manson was never at the scene of the crime. The California prosecutors had to show that murder was committed by those acting under the control and direction of Manson. To do this the prosecution had to offer immunity to one who was actually at the scene of the crime for testimony detailing Manson’s involvement. Of course, all those at the “crime scene” are dead. And unlike the sorry crew that made up the “Manson Family”, those who flew the planes were fairly well educated and unlikely dupes of a controlling cult figure.

So what can you expect of a defense counsel? Change your plea to not guilty and suppress all incriminating statements made after capture. And what does the Government have left? An informant? Oh please. The US will have only telephone intercepts which must be proven to be between KSM and the hijackers which, beyond a reasonable doubt, connect KSM to the outcome of 9-11, which is highly doubtful. And we need not mention that there are many willing to testify that the real mastermind of 9-11 was the US Government itself. But even if a New York City jury votes to convict, will it vote for the death penalty on circumstantial evidence? I doubt it.

So why did Holder make this decision? Well, Prosecutors as a rule suffer from extreme arrogance and hubris. They tend to only see their cases in the strongest light. Supremely self-confident, they never consider how the trial may turn against them. And this case, they think, will make them rich and famous. Just like Marcia Clarke.

First these terrorists are NOT US citizens. They are enemy combatants, prisoners of war. They do not have access to citizen rights under the Constitution. Therefore they CAN NOT be tried in a civilian court of law.

Second this is typical of this administration. They have already shown they are willing to spit on the Constitution whenever it gets in their way.

Third, these people (the current administration) are radicals…….they and their associates were trained by Saul Arlinsky “Rules for Radicals” and educated and influenced by the likes of William Ayres (co-founder of the Weather Underground). They are domestic terrorist who don’t think enough was done (in the 60′s) to destabilize and demoralize this country.

All of this should come as no surprise from the people who refuse to produce actual evidence (a real birth certificate) to prove the person in the WH is a real citizen of this country. If they don’t have to play by those rules and laws why would they obey any other. I’m not a birther but one wonders why they won’t produce a simple piece of paper to put this all to rest………that arrogance and lack of transparency is at the heart of why they do what they do.

Ms. DeWinter, herein lies the problem. You are pondering and questioning this issue in the context of your very valid sense of integrity, which, unfortunately, is something pres obama can neither recognize nor truly show evidence thereof in his short political history (nor, probably in his entire life). Coupled with his brazenly unabated determination to undermine the USA and all it has ever stood for, we have before us the “hope and change” only a rogue “wannabe” despot (such as bhobama is) could dream up.

Two observations. First, by moving KSM from a military court to a civilian, AG Holder is now in charge of the process. As such, in the last hour of Obama’s only term, he can sell Soros and the Saudi’s a pardon for KSM (as he did for Marc Rich in the last hour of Willie’s term) for, what, 10 to 25 million dollars.
Second, if KSM’s case, a foreign muslim who killed Americans, can be moved from military to civilian court, why can’t Hasan’s case, an AMERICAN muslim who killed Americans also be moved to civilian court?
Holder is as crooked as Obama (and Rangel, Dodd, Murtha, Daley, etc.); why would anyone expect integrity frm either?

[...] but the prosecution will more difficult than that of Charles Manson. [...]

… and the monkey wrenches are already flying in the machine:

“Germany Concerned Its Evidence to Be Used to Back Death Penalty in 9/11 Trial” by AP/ Fox News -

Justice Ministry [Germany] spokeswoman Katharina Jahntz on Saturday confirmed a report in Der Spiegel that a German observer would attend the trial to ensure that no evidence provided by Germany would be used to apply the death penalty.

A German government official says the nation will send an observer to the upcoming trial in New York of the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and four accused henchmen. [...]

Why is President Obama risking legal disaster? To pay tribute to his extreme left-wing followers? To impress the rest of the world (most non-Americans think the American judicial system is a joke, and the upcoming KSM show is only making it worse)? Is he trying to create chaos? Why?

“The Obama administration’s approach to the 9/11 trials is emblematic of what you might call Obama’s egalitarian faux-democracy, in which the illusion of responding to every side in a debate undercuts the democratic process of actually arriving at a decision…This illusion of national participation in his decision-making process, with the promise of a happy ending that excludes no one, has been Obama’s method almost from Day One. Call it the American Idol style of governing—except that no possibility ever gets voted out of the competition.”

I fail to understand how Hirsi Ali wasn’t a refugee, so I simply do not see the parallel with the KSM case. Perhaps it’s in the menutia of Dutch law, but so far as I can tell, a woman who’s condemned to be the property of a husband she did not choose who flees to freedom is, in fact, a refugee.

So far as the rest, I could not agree with you more.

I do believe that Obama will be embarrassed when the case against KSM and his merry band of Jihadists is thrown out of court…

I found it most interesting when I heard the attorney say that they all admitted to their part in 9/11, but would pleed “Not Guilty” in order to have a political forum in court…

Hey just thought you all like to know, Eric Holder law firm Convington And Burling a law firm in Washington D.C. is defending 17 Yemen Gitmo detainees. Just tought you all know what Eric Holder is all about. What does this say about Obama. Obama picked Eric Holder for that reason. Check it out on the internet.